Re: [113attendees] hybrid meetings: the worst of both worlds

[Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>]

Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]> wrote:
    >> It's an interesting suggestion, and I think we should try it somehow.
    >> It may be too radical a change for some.

    > Fair point. And it'd have to be done in some way so as to avoid big new
    > costs (e.g. for re-arranging rooms). OTOH, if there're only small
    > numbers in the WG sessions maybe keeping round-table setups would work
    > all week.

Round-table setups could actually be awesome with an agenda of more workshop
and less slideware.

But maybe there is some intermediate arrangement that satisfies both.
Maybe we could have the half-round table where the other half is virtual.

    > Again though, even if that particular suggestion isn't tried, I suspect
    > being more radical than 113 is going to be needed if we're gonna end up
    > succeeding with the hybrid meetings that are inevitable for the coming
    > years. (As someone else said, climate change alone is likely to be
    > sufficient to force that.)

I agree completely.

    >> (As a fellow morning-hater, I would personally find that order a
    >> problem.  I hack better in the evening, and sessions are a good
    >> motivation to wake up)

    > Wait, what? Isn't the IETF meeting agenda supposed to be designed
    > around me? :-)

The trick is for us to always get you to a time zone that is 6 hours ahead of
the meeting "9am"

I find that I can do meetings early (even 3am start) because there are other
people to engage me.  But, I can't write code/edit documents until after
noon, because that kind of activity has to be internally driven.


-- 
Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-